Even if some mechanism is needed to prevent corruption, the aggregate ban is not “narrowly tailored” as required by the Constitution.

Under long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence, the state must demonstrate an important interest before infringing on First Amendment rights. Even after demonstrating such an interest, it must then address it with a “narrowly tailored” solution that goes no further than necessary. Here, neither requirement is met. The real reason for the aggregate limit is probably pretty […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

McCutcheon’s case does not challenge the solicitation ban on such large contributions. It is not clear if the ban would fall.

If McCutcheon wins his case, it is not clear that a president, leader in Congress, or any candidate can solicit the million dollar donations that opponents claim. McCutcheon’s lawsuit challenges the law’s ban on his ability to give the money and the Republican National Committee’s right to receive it, but there is no challenge to […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

37 states have no aggregate limit of any kind. This is not an issue in those states.

States are the laboratories of our democracy, and they are doing just fine without aggregate limits. If the fear that top officials would use joint fundraising committees to foster corruption were justified, such a pattern of contributions surely would have been manifested in one of these jurisdictions at some time over the past half century […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

Boehner and Pelosi can already ask for $4.3 million, but they don’t

The biennial limit only applies to individuals, not PACs. So Boehner or Pelosi could already set up a joint fundraising committee to raise millions from PACs today. The committee could raise funds of up to $10,000 each for up to 435 House candidates, plus up to $15,000 for their party’s House campaign committee, or a […]

Filed Under: 1. McCutcheon, Arguments

The Center for Competitive Politics is now the Institute for Free Speech.